M/S Harsh Roadlines Private Limited Vs South Eastern Coal Fields Limited

¶1

1

¶2

2026:CGHC:19264-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WPC No. 2004 of 2026

¶6

1 - M/s Harsh Roadlines Private Limited Through Proprietor - Shakil Ahmed, S/o - Abdul Rajak, Aged About 45 Years, Office At - Shop No. 01, Nawagarh, Mahamaya Mandir Road, Ambikapur, Sarguja, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Petitioner

¶8

versus

¶9

1 - South Eastern Coal Fields Limited Through Managing Director, Office At - Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶10

2 - General Manager Contract Management Cell, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶11

3 - General Manager, Finance, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶12

4 - General Manager Production, S.E.C.L., Seepat Road, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondents

¶14

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶15

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----- -- For Petitioner : Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondents/SECL : Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, Advocate.

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶17

Order on Board

¶18

Digitally signed byMOHAMMEDAADIL KHAN Date: 2026.04.2917:20:47 +0530

¶19

2

¶20

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶21

27-04-2026

¶22

Heard Mr. Gyan Prakash Shukla, learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel, appearing for Respondents/SECL.

¶23

The present petition has been filed by the Petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking the following relief(s):-

¶24

“10.1. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly call for records pertaining to case of the petitioner.

¶25

10.2. That the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside and quash the impugned order dated 10/12/2025 issued by the respondent authorities, in the interest of justice.

¶26

10.3. That, the Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner firm to participate in future tender's.

¶27

10.4. That, any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deemed just and fit in facts and circumstances of the case.”

¶28

The facts of the case in brief are that, the Respondent authorities floated an e-tender notice on 12-12-2024, for the following works (A) Hiring of tippers for transportation of coal from surface bunker/coal stock yard of NCPH R-6 Mine to NCPH siding via Tina Dafai, for a quantity of 33,07,500 Te @1294 TPD for a period of 2557 days of

¶29

3

¶30

NCPH R-6 Mine, Chirimiri Area, (B) Hiring of tippers for transportation of coal from surface bunker to coal stock yard of NCPH R-6 Mine for a Quantity of 1,57,500 Te for a period of 2557 days on as and when required basis of NCPH R-6 Mine, Chirimiri Area, (C) Hiring of payloader for mechanical loading of stacked coal into tippers from coal stock yard of NCPH R-6 Mine for the quantity of 1,57,500Te at NCPH R- 6 Mine for a period of 2557 days on as and when required basis of NCPH R-6 Mine, Chirimiri Area. The Petitioner participated in the bid procedure. On 24-03-2025 the Petitioner preferred an e-mail stating that due to an inadvertent error, Petitioner firm mistakenly entered the reverse value in the column for the “Accepted percentage of base value” instead of entering 85.01% as per Petitioner calculation, the Petitioner typed 14.99. After opening of price bid in GeM portal, the Petitioner emerged as L-1. The Petitioner quoted his bid Rs.1,05,61,871.85 (inclusive of GST @ 18%) against Rs.7,04,59,452.00 (inclusive of GST @ 18%), which is 85.10% below the estimated Cost. It has been contended by the Petitioner that the email dated 24-03-2025 was preferred when the bid was not opened by the tender committee and the Petitioner tried to correct their inadvertent mistake. The Petitioner also preferred a letter dated 13-04-2025 to the General Manager (CMC), SECL, Bilaspur (C.G.), but no heed was paid. On 06-08-2025 the General Manager (CMC)/HOD, SECL, Bilaspur, issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner against proposed penalty of debarment with respect to G.E.M. - 144. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed their response to the show cause notice and again same explanation

¶31

4

¶32

was shown in the reply. Thereafter, on 10-12-2025 the impugned order was passed by the General Manager, SECL debarring the Petitioner from from participating in future tenders of SECL for a period of one year, against which the Petitioner filed WPC No.1201/2026 which was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19-03-2026 with liberty to file a duly constituted petition. Thereafter, the present petition has been filed challenging the impugned order dated 10-12-2025.

¶33

Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 10-12-2025 is arbitrary, unreasonable, and contrary to the facts on record, as it fails to consider that the alleged discrepancy arose purely from a bona fide clerical error while submitting the bid on a newly introduced portal. The Petitioner inadvertently entered the bid in ascending order instead of descending order, resulting in an abnormal quotation. No prudent bidder would intentionally submit a bid detrimental to its own commercial interest and reputation, and the error was promptly brought to the notice of the Respondent Authorities for rectification. It is further submitted that mere participation in a tender process does not result in a concluded contract. A bid is only an offer, and no binding obligation arises unless the same is accepted. In the present case, no such acceptance took place. Despite this, the Respondent Authority has erroneously treated the situation as a contractual breach and proceeded to impose the extreme penalty of debarment without assigning cogent reasons or affording due consideration to the Petitioner’s explanation and attempts to rectify the mistake. The impugned action of debarring the Petitioner is grossly

¶34

5

¶35

disproportionate and violative of the principles of natural justice and proportionality. Debarment, being akin to civil death, must be reserved for cases involving fraud, misrepresentation, or deliberate misconduct, none of which are present here. The Respondent has acted in an irrational and Wednesbury unreasonable manner, thereby infringing the Petitioner’s fundamental right to carry on business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India, warranting interference by this Hon’ble Court under Article 226. Therefore, the petition filed by the Petitioner may be allowed.

¶36

Learned counsel for the Respondents submits that the Petitioner availed EMD exemption facility and no EMD amount has been deposited. He further submits that as per clause 17 titled as Modification and withdrawal of bids of TCC, which has been mentioned in the impugned order itself, if the Bidder withdrawing his bid is other than L-1, the tender shall go on and if the Bidder withdrawing his bid is L-1, then re-tender will be done. Therefore, only on account of the act of the Petitioner, the Respondents authority had to withdraw the complete subject tender. He would further submit more than one third period of debarment has already elapsed.

¶37

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with the petition.

¶38

From the record, it is evident that the discrepancy in the Petitioner’s bid occurred on account of an inadvertent clerical error while entering the percentage in the GeM portal, resulting in a reverse

¶39

6

¶40

quotation. It is not in dispute that the Petitioner promptly intimated the Respondent Authorities about the said mistake prior to the opening of the price bid and thereafter made representations seeking correction. There is nothing on record to suggest any mala fide intent, fraud, or deliberate manipulation. At the same time, it cannot be overlooked that due to the Petitioner emerging as L-1 on account of the erroneous bid, the Respondent Authorities were constrained to cancel and re-initiate the tender process, causing some administrative inconvenience.

¶41

Having considered the matter in its entirety, this Court is of the view that the Respondent Authority failed to distinguish between a bona fide human error and a deliberate act warranting penal consequences. The impugned action of debarment is disproportionate and not in consonance with the settled principles of administrative discretion, fairness, and proportionality. Accordingly, the action of the Respondents in debarring the Petitioner is held to be arbitrary, unreasonable, and unsustainable in law, particularly in light of the Petitioner’s prompt efforts to rectify the error.

¶42

In view of the foregoing, the petition deserves to be allowed and is hereby allowed. The impugned order dated 10-12-2025 is quashed and set aside. However, considering that the Respondent Authorities had to cancel and re-initiate the tender process on account of the Petitioner’s error, this Court deems it appropriate to balance the equities by directing the Petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) to Respondent No.2 as compensation within a period of four

¶43

7

¶44

weeks from today. Subject to the aforesaid direction, the petition stands

¶45

allowed.

¶46

Sd/Sd/-

¶47

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

¶48

Judge Chief Justice